Dollar Tree Cinema: Sharkman

“Sharkman” (2005)
Starring William Forsythe, Hunter Tylo, Jeffrey Combs, Arthur Roberts
Directed by Michael Oblowitz
Screenplay by Monty Featherstone and Howard Zemski, story by Boaz Davidson and Ken Badish
Rated R for violence

We’ve firmly established my lack of horror bonafides, but it is October and I have bought a lot of allegedly scary movies at Dollar Tree. And while $1.25 for almost any movie on DVD, Blu Ray or both – sometimes with a digital copy thrown in – is a good deal, there are even better bargains to be found.

For example: the Meg-A-Shark 8 Movie Collection, featuring sharks threatening humanity in locations as varied as Venice, Mexico, Malibu and, in this one, just about anywhere there's water.

I don't know why I like shark movies, but I do. Or at least, I like the idea of them. I can probably count on one hand with a finger or two left over how many I’ve liked that didn't include the word “Jaws” in the title. Of course, at less than 16 cents a movie, it's not like I was taking a big risk on these.*

I decided to start with “Sharkman,” because I like superheroes even more than the idea of a good shark movie and this one has ill-advised genetic experimentation and a title ending in “-man,” two hallmarks of the genre.

Spoilers follow.

It opens off an unidentified island in the Western Pacific, where a man and woman who clearly did not check to see if they were in a shark-centric sci-fi/horror movie go for a swim and get attacked by something with teeth, fins and limbs. From there we go straight to a lab that screams “mad scientist” before a line of dialogue is even spoken, where Dr. King (Combs) and two associates who don't inspire confidence in ethical or even competent science are discussing their work. They also have the bodies of a lot of naked women - and maybe the lady killed from the opening? - in there.

Back in the States, we meet Amelia (Tylo) and Tom (Forsythe), who work for a pharmaceutical company owned by Whitney Feder (Roberts). He tells them their old associate Dr. King has come up with some exciting research involving stem cells and they need to fly out to his island to see if it's legit so they can make a boatload of money. This is awkward for Amelia, who was engaged or possibly married to King’s son Paul, who died of cancer. Now, she's involved with Tom, who comes along despite being the head of IT.

When they arrive, things go from awkward to deadly as King informs then that not only is his son alive, but he’s cured of his cancer, thanks to having his DNA combined with the stem cells of a hammerhead shark or something. Then he tells them he really just lured them there to kill them, which he decides to do by flooding the room and letting his son eat them, as opposed to having his automatic weapon-toting guards just shoot them. This is supposedly because hunting will help his son's brain evolve or something and, also, he really wants him to mate with a human woman because their kid will be an even better hybrid. Or something. King doesn't just want to save his son but usher in a new stage of evolution and a new Atlantis.

The group, consisting of obvious shark meals except for Amelia and Tom, escape and lead Paul Sharkman on a chase around the island. While King does wax poetic about why hammerheads are so much cooler than great white sharks, he doesn't explain how his son has the power to appear in any body of water anywhere in the island. The ocean when Tom, Amelia and the side dishes try to steal a boat to escape, sure, but inland water that seems too shallow to hide a shark man, or even a bluegill, maybe not?

Clearly, I wasn't impressed, but let me give some credit where it's due. The effects are better than I was expecting and do exceed some previous #DollarTreeCinema entries like “The Jurassic Games.” The glimpses of Paul Sharkman don't look clunky, but glimpses are pretty much all we get. There are one or two shots where he’s in the water, but nothing with any of the humans.

The movie earns it's R rating, but not in the ways I expected or kind of feared. For all the talk about mating, there's not a lot of over-the-top sexual content, outside of one of Paul’s victims’ nearly see-through bra and Amelia’s itsy bitsy, teeny weeny swimsuit at what appears to be the office pool.** That's good, but then why focus so much on King wanting his son to mate with a woman? Like, revenge is enough motivation, why do we need to add that? Is it just to get Amelia in her underwear in the finale?

I’m not someone who appreciates gore, so the attack scenes being quick, bloody cuts is just fine with me. But the aftermath is particularly gruesome, with limbs and other bloody body parts aplenty. I guess it's cheaper to make believable leftovers from a walking shark attack than film them? But again, it seems unnecessary.

Doo doo, doo-doo, doo-doo

And then there are the dead, baby shark-human hybrids, which didn't even make me get that song stuck in my head because I was too busy trying to figure out the gestation period and then realizing I didn't want to know or even think about that.

There are a lot of internal logic flaws that are both unpleasant and unnecessary. Mad scientist turns dying son into Sharkman, seeks revenge on his former employer and ex was enough. I'm also not sure why a) Tom had to go on the trip as the IT guy and b) how he became the IT guy after clearly being in some kind of special forces unit and probably qualifying as an Expendable.

Forsythe, about to deliver a fatal exception error.

There is a moment I appreciated late in the movie, where all of Dr. King's lofty pontificating comes to naught when Paul attacks him too, proving the only thing he accomplished was creating a monster.

“Sharkman” – which also goes by “Hammerhead” if you're looking for it on IMDb – isn't so bad it's good, but it doesn't feel like there was enough money or effort in it to succeed in any other realm. Constant references to shark hybrid mating and gore that is gross without being particularly scary or shocking leave it in kind of a no man's land. But what do you expect for less than 16 cents?

* - Buying four of them, again, on Blu Ray is a little more questionable, even if it was again only for $1.25.

** - That's not really over-the-top, just weird.